FL 1st DCA: LACOMBE v DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
From the opinion…
It is well-settled that:
A plaintiff who is not the original lender may establish standing to foreclose a mortgage loan by submitting a note with a blank or special endorsement, an assignment of the note, or an affidavit otherwise proving the plaintiff’s status as the holder of the note.McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
But standing must be established as of the time of filing the foreclosure complaint.
Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.124 So. 3d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (footnote omitted).
Even if exhibits 1, 3, 4 and 5—admitted by the trial court—had been relevant, properly authenticated, and qualified for the business records exception to the hearsay rule, see Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 137 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), none of Deutsche Bank’s exhibits qualifies as an indorsement from Long Beach Mortgage to Deutsche Bank, an assignment from Long Beach Mortgage to Deutsche Bank, or an affidavit otherwise proving the plaintiff’s standing to bring the foreclosure action on the note and mortgage at issue as a matter of law. Likewise, the record contains no assertion or proof by Deutsche Bank of its standing under any means identified in section 673.3011, Florida Statutes. See Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Absent evidence of the plaintiff’s standing, the final judgment must be reversed.
Appellants also challenge the trial court’s pre-trial denial of their motion for summary judgment. However, the trial of the issue of fact regarding plaintiff’s right to enforce the note via ownership thereof rendered any error in the denial of summary judgment moot. Sunrise Lakes Condo. Apts., Phase III, Inc. v. Frank, 73 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
We decline to remand the case for the presentation of additional evidence because “appellate courts do not generally provide parties with an opportunity to retry their case upon a failure of proof.” Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. v. Lira, 48 So. 3d 76, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Deutsche Bank filed its complaint in 2008 and hadmore than five years until the eventual trial to produce competent evidence to prove its right to enforce the note at the time the suit was filed and prove the amount of the indebtedness. When Deutsche Bank finally tried its case in mid-2013, it relied upon a note secured by a mortgage payable to the order of the original lender, a specific indorsement transferring the debt to an entity other than Deutsche Bank, a single witness employed by the latest in a succession of “loan servicers,” and upon unauthenticated, largely unexplained papers it advanced as proof of its standing. This failure of proof after ample opportunity is no reason to provide Deutsche Bank with a second opportunity to prove its case on remand. See Wolkoff v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., ___ So. 3d ___, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1159, 2014 WL 2378662 (Fla. 2d DCA May 30, 2014); Correa v. U. S. Bank, N.A., 118 So. 3d 952, 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
The final judgment of foreclosure is reversed due to the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. This case is remanded for the entry of an order of involuntary dismissal of the action.
BENTON and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR; OSTERHAUS, J., CONCURS IN RESULT.
Full opinion below…
~
4closureFraud.org
~
LACOMBE v DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
This is just one of three big rulings THIS WEEK from the Florida 1DCA. In Keifert v. Nationstar (https://edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/2013/5998/135998_DC13_10132014_100313_i.pdf) the 1DCA held once again that you must also have the mortgage at inception.
In Burdeshaw v. Bank of New York Mellon
(https://edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/2013/2703/132703_DC13_10132014_093921_i.pdf) the 1DCA made it clear they’ve had it with these robo-witnesses banks and servicers are putting up as witnesses.